How Far Can Indonesia Go? Utilizing TSIA on the Would-Be TPP Impact for Indonesia

  • Riza N. Arfani
  • Poppy S. WinantiEmail author
Part of the Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific book series (ELIAP)


By offering the Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (TSIA) assessment tools and beyond, the article discusses economic and non-economic aspects worth considering in light of Indonesia’s interest to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It identifies trade and non-trade elements of which future signatories of TPP Agreement such as Indonesia must take into account prior to its final decision on whether to join. Utilizing sustainable development perspective to assess a free trade agreement (FTA), TSIA offers a distinctive feature of measuring not only an FTA economic impact, but also non-trade ones that potentially arise from the agreement. This chapter accordingly offers a framework by which a careful and thorough assessment is required and of which rational calculation is settled on whether the benefits of joining TPP would outweigh the costs of remaining outside the agreement.


Trade sustainability impact assessment (TSIA) Free trade agreement (FTA) Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Sustainable development perspective Indonesia’s manufacture Indonesia’s IPR protection sector 



The original version of this article was presented at the Conference on “Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Paradigm Shift in International Trade Regulation?” jointly organised by the Centre for Financial Regulation and Economic Development (CFRED), Faculty of Law, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and the Asia WTO Research Network (AWRN) (Hong Kong, May 16–18 2016). The authors would like to thank Ms. R.V. Anuradha (Partner, Clarus Law Associates, New Delhi, India) and Mr. Heng Wang (Associate Professor, University of New South Wale, Australia) for their enlightening insights and worthwhile comments and suggestions during the discussion following our presentation. Acknowledgement also goes to fellow AWRN members and conference participants during the question and answer session for their valuable comments and inputs.


  1. Ando, M., & Kimura, F. (2009). Fragmentation in East Asia: Further evidence. ERIA Discussion Paper Series. Google Scholar
  2. Arfani, R. N. (2015). ASEAN4-Japan trade relations in automotive and electronics sectors: Trade patterns and trends in value added. Ritsumeikan Journal of International Studies, 15.Google Scholar
  3. Athukorala, P., & Kohpaiboon, A. (2013) Global production sharing, trade patterns and industrialization in Southeast Asia. ANU Working Papers in Trade and Development.Google Scholar
  4. Asian Development Bank. (2008). How to design, negotiate, and implement a free trade agreement in Asia. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Available at Accessed January 10, 2016.
  5. Bernadette, A. O., & Francoise, N. (2006). A qualitative analysis of a potential free trade agreement between the EU and ASEAN. Report for the European Commission and EU-ASEAN Vision Group. University of Limerick and IFRI. Available at Accessed January 15, 2016.
  6. Cheong, I. (2013). Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Evaluation and implications for East Asian regionalism.’ ADB Working Paper 428. Asian Development Bank Institute. Available at Accessed September 15, 2014.
  7. Deardorff, A. V. (2013). Trade implications of the Trans-Pacific partnership for ASEAN and other Asian countries. In 2nd 2013 Asian Development Review Conference (Manila, 2013).Google Scholar
  8. Elms, D. K. (2013). The Trans-Pacific partnership trade negotiations: Some outstanding issues for the final stretch. Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy, 8, 371–391.Google Scholar
  9. Elms, D. K. (2014). The Trans-Pacific partnership: Looking ahead to next steps. In T. Guoqiang & P. A. Petri (Eds.), New directions in Asia-Pacific economic integration (pp. 9–22). Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Center.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission, External Trade. (2006). Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment. European Commission Europa Trade. European Commission. Available at Accessed January 18, 2016.
  11. Fergusson, I. F. et al. (2013). The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and issues for congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington DC: US Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  12. Fergusson, I. F., & Vaughn B. (2011). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  13. Grandstrand, O., & Tietze, F. (2015). IP strategies and policies for and against evergreening. Centre for Technology Management Working Paper Series, No. 1, April 2015. Available at Accessed 12 January 2016.
  14. Hamanaka, S. (2014). TPP versus RCEP: Control of membership and agenda setting. Journal of East Asian Economic Integration, 18, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IDE JETRO and WTO. (2011). Trade patterns and global value chains in East Asia: From trade in goods to trade in tasks. Geneva and Tokyo: WTO Secretariat and IDE JETRO.Google Scholar
  16. JAMA. (2013). Driving growth towards the future: Hand in hand between ASEAN and Japan. Tokyo: Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association.Google Scholar
  17. Kimura, F. (2006). International production and distribution networks in East Asia: Eighteen facts, mechanics, and policy implications. Asian Economic Policy Review 326–344 (Japan Center for Economic Research).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuroiwa, I., & Heng, T. M. (2008). Production networks and industrial clusters: Integrating economies in Southeast Asia. Singapore: IDE JETRO and ISEAS.Google Scholar
  19. LSE Enterprise. (2015). Trade sustainability impact assessment of the free trade agreement between the European Union and Japan: Final report. European Commission (Publications Office of the European Union). Available at Accessed January 15, 2016.
  20. Negara, S. D. (2010). Fragmentation of electronics and textile industries from Indonesia to CLMV countries. In R. Banomyong & M. Ishida (Eds.), A study on upgrading industrial structure of CLMV countries (pp. 158–220). Jakarta: ERIA.Google Scholar
  21. Oikawa, H. (2008) Empirical GVC analysis in electronics and automobile industries: An application of Asian IO tables. IDE Discussion Paper No. 172.Google Scholar
  22. Petri, P. A. et al. (2012). Chapter 4: Economic implications of the Trans-Pacific and Asian tracks. In P. A. Petri et al. (Eds.), The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration; A quantitative assessment (pp. 35–61). Peterson Institute of International Economics.Google Scholar
  23. Plummer, M. G. et al. (2010). A methodology for impact assessment of free trade agreements. Manila: Asian Development Bank, ADB.Google Scholar
  24. Stevens, C. et al. (2015). The impact of free trade agreements between developed and developing countries on economic development in developing countries: Rapid evidence assessment. Overseas Development Institute, ODI. Available at Accessed January 18, 2016.
  25. United States Trade Representatives (USTR). ‘Summary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.’ USTR News (2015) 1.Google Scholar
  26. Viner, J. (1950). The customs union issue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, B R, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis. (Congressional Research Service, US Congress, Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013) 1.Google Scholar
  28. Winanti, P. S. (2015). Trans-Pacific Partnership: Join to not yo join?. The Jakarta Post. Available at Accessed December 31, 2015.
  29. Yu, W. (2013). TPP talks show promises for US Asia strategy—With or without China. Available at Accessed January 21, 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Relations and Center for World Trade StudiesUniversitas Gadjah MadaYogyakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations